I was unclear. You are right. I once mentioned funding earlier, and in my head I had brought it up again, but on review I see that I didn't actually type it again. I meant to, but I didn't. Anyway, we both agree that Congress funds and builds the military.
Agreed. By stopping all funding, the military would in theory be unable to do anything at all. The lack of money has never in recent times stopped the government from spending money, but, anyway.
This is our disagreement. I deny that Congress can order an existing military force to go anywhere or to do anything, nor curtail the President's orders for such. The power to coofftopicnd the military is plainly that of the coofftopicnder-in-chief, and we know who the coofftopicnder-in-chief is. The 1973 law has been controversial from the beginning, but has not been litigated.
This question is analogous to the law suits over whether or not Congress can fire a Cabinet member. The answer from the courts was no, that Cabinet members have to be impeached in the same manner as a President has to be impeached. The rationale was that because the President has exclusive power to nominate Cabinet members, after the Senate approves an appointment only the President can fire them. Well, after Congress builds and funds an army, the President alone coofftopicnds it. There is only one coofftopicnder mentioned in the Constitution.
Suppose Congress passed a statute limiting the President's selection for Cabinet appointments. What would the courts say to that? They'd obviously strike it down. The analogy follows.
My point was that it's a clearly-written item in the Constitution, and statutes never override the Constitution. One body builds the military, and one body coofftopicnds it.